Papers for

automated reasoning system builders

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

On-policy distillation can transfer teacher failures in vision-language models

Do As I Do, Not As I Say: On-Policy Distillation Inherits the Teacher in Vision-Language Models

Abstract: Improving the reasoning capabilities of vision-language models (VLMs) often relies on post-training with supervision from stronger models. Two common strategies are supervised fine-tuning (SFT), which trains on teacher-generated demonstrations, and on-policy distillation (OPD), which provides teacher feedback on trajectories generated by the student itself. While OPD can be more data-efficient by supervising student-generated trajectories, it is unclear how the teacher's supervision at each state affects the student's learned behavior. To study this question, we conduct a controlled comparison of OPD and filtered SFT across data budgets and tasks where the teacher exhibits different levels of reliability, and analyze how these differences shape student accuracy and completion behavior. Across the two tasks, we find that OPD is effective only when the teacher remains reliable on student-generated trajectories. On ChartQA, where the teacher completes 99% of its solutions, OPD trained on only 10% of the data comes within 1.4 accuracy points of full-data SFT. In contrast, on Geometry3K, where the teacher fails to complete 22% of its solutions, OPD underperforms SFT by 7.9 points, with most of the gap explained by incomplete responses. More strikingly, starting OPD from an SFT student reduces its completion rate from 76% to 62%, effectively erasing the completion behavior learned through SFT. Filtering teacher demonstrations for completeness alone recovers much of SFT's advantage. These results show that on-policy supervision can transfer not only teacher knowledge but also persistent failure modes on student-visited states. Code is available at https://github.com/ffy208/opd-inherits-teacher-vlm.

Wed 14 OctMachine LearningComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
This paper looks at how teaching a vision-language AI model by letting it learn from its own actions (on-policy distillation) compares to just learning from pre-recorded examples (supervised fine-tuning). The authors find that if the teacher AI model often fails on the student AI’s own examples, the student will also inherit those failures. This means that the method is only better when the teacher is reliable on the student’s paths. Filtering out incomplete teacher examples helps the student learn better. So, learning from the teacher’s own examples isn’t always better and can pass on mistakes.
Open → 2610.20989v1

Data-free training sharpens language model adaptation at test time

Sharpen Before You Adapt: Data-Free Entry-State Sharpening for Test-Time Reinforcement Learning

Abstract: Test-time reinforcement learning (TTRL) adapts language models on unlabeled test problems using supervision derived from their own samples. This makes the checkpoint's \emph{entry state} consequential: a diffuse policy provides noisier self-supervision and may spend much of a limited adaptation budget merely concentrating probability mass before reliably expressing capability it already possesses. We propose \textbf{entry-state sharpening}: use data-free training \emph{before} TTRL to prepare a general-purpose checkpoint in a state that subsequent label-free adaptation can exploit more efficiently. The idea is not tied to one training recipe; different data-free objectives can move the same base model to different entry states. Across five data-free checkpoints derived from Qwen3-4B and evaluated under an identical 15-step TTRL protocol, entry policy entropy strongly rank-orders endpoint conversion efficiency, a reliability-to-reachability measure (Spearman $ρ=-0.90$; $ρ=-0.99$ after controlling for entry reachability). The contrast across objectives is striking: R-Zero remains diffuse at $3.39$ nats and finishes below the untuned base in 6/6 matched comparisons across MATH, GPQA, and AMC, whereas SPIRAL reaches $0.07$ nats and achieves the highest post-TTRL accuracy on MATH and GPQA despite its self-play stage using no math training data. An in-domain label-free self-distillation intervention further shows that the entry state can be deliberately sharpened. These results motivate treating checkpoint preparation as a \emph{state-control problem}: use data-free training to improve TTRL readiness, with entry entropy as a label-free control signal and reachable capability as the constraint.

Thu 1 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Many language AI models improve themselves by learning during testing but can start out too uncertain, making learning slower. The authors show that preparing these models beforehand without extra data can help by making their starting point more focused. This focused starting point lets the model learn more effectively during test time using only its own generated examples. They tested different ways to prepare the models and found that models with sharper initial behavior adapted best and performed better on math and reasoning tasks.
Open → 2610.00903v1